Posted
by
ScuttleMonkeyon Friday February 13, 2009 @06:47PM
from the measure-your-carbon-footprint-epeen dept.

Mike writes to tell us that Samsung has released their latest green gadget, a solar-powered mobile phone. The "Blue Earth" phone has the entire reverse side covered with a solar panel, and the body of the phone is made from recycled water bottles. "The device is set to be energy efficient, with a new user interface making it easy to activate the phone's energy saving mode. It also includes a pedometer, and CO2 emissions calculator, and Samsung is aiming for minimal packaging made entirely from recycled paper. Samsung is clearly throwing the gauntlet to all phone manufacturers, and we hope to see solar cells integrated throughout the rest of their line. The phone will be unveiled on February 16th at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona."

I had a solar-cell battery on my first Nokia - 1610/freestyle.
Not sure how long ago, but the SIM was credit-card sized, and the battery was about 5x13cm (2"x5") so plenty of room for a big solar panel on the back:)

So the first question that comes to my mind when someone says "solar powered cellphone" isn't "does it have a pedometer", but rater "how long does it take to recharge and how long does the battery last". For some reason TFA answered my first question, but not the second.

Right now I tend to recharge my phone at night because I use it during the day. This could be a problem with a solar powered cell phone. If it's power efficient enough that I can leave it on my desk at work (under standard fluorescent lighting) and keep it fully charged then this could be great. If I have to leave it on a windowsill in direct sunlight for half of the day every day, it's far less practical.

A similarly configured Chinese mobile phone takes one hour to recharge with forty minutes talk time. Sit near a window or go outside...the sunlight will do you good:)

Solar charging is simply one attribute of the overall 'green' theme, which includes being made of and packaged in recycled materials. The take-away is the move towards 'green', not just solar charging.

I'd be worried about the battery's overall lifetime. Lithium ion, the only reasonable choice for modern cellphone applications, doesn't last forever as it is, and dies faster if kept at elevated temperatures. Making a phone that encourages the user to leave it lying in bright sunlight seems like a potential issue. That said, I'm just a guy spouting off on the internet, Samsung could easily have run the numbers and determined that the battery will only die 10% faster, or some acceptable value; but that would

I love this idea, I think that you have missed the whole idea of the phone admittedly it TFA didn't really point it out that well.

The first reason I love this one is what it is made out of. If you are like me your phone will only last 1 year dude to abuse. So if the phone is already made of recyclable materials I feel less guilty when I get rid of it a year later.

The second reason is the solar changer. Again I think you missed the point of the solar part of this phone (and the author of the article did

So the first question that comes to my mind when someone says "solar powered cellphone" isn't "does it have a pedometer", but rater "how long does it take to recharge and how long does the battery last".

I think the second part is important, especially as high temperatures tend to dramatically shorten the lifespan of Lithium batteries. Leaving your phone in the car or in direct sunlight on a hot day can make it very hot, I can't imagine it would be very good for a battery to be in a small black enclosure that's regularly left in the sun.

Most mobile phones stay in your pocket until you're ready to use them. When they're out, your hand is generally wrapped around the back. That kinda screws up the whole solar powered angle. The only time it might be useful is if you leave it sitting out in the sun when the battery dies. That's assuming you can set it down without getting it stolen. It sounds a lot more like a marketing gimmick than a useful feature.

TFA shows an app on the phone that says how many trees you saved. What I don't get about green types is just that. I'll be the first to admit that this planet would really suck without trees, but why does it matter if we just replant after harvesting? Do trees have feelings that I'm not aware of? I'm really getting sick of tangential "green" products/methods/processes that wouldn't matter in the first place if your not an idiot with your resources. (i.e. suitable land, environment etc for trees)

I don't think you appreciate the difference between natural forest and a clear-cut, replanted tree farm. It's like grass vs. astroturf. The replanted area is lacking all of the birds, plants, mammals, even bugs and microbes that are in the ecology of natural forest. It takes 100 years for a forest to recover from being clear cut. Trees might be what people think of as a forest, but they are only one element.

That said, it does seem kind of silly to talk about solar cells "saving trees".

I don't think you appreciate the difference between natural forest and a clear-cut, replanted tree farm. It's like grass vs. astroturf. The replanted area is lacking all of the birds, plants, mammals, even bugs and microbes that are in the ecology of natural forest.

As the owner of a replanted tree farm that is now 19 years old, I think you should know that your eloquent conjecture is completely false.

I don't think you appreciate the difference between natural forest and a clear-cut, replanted tree farm. It's like grass vs. astroturf. The replanted area is lacking all of the birds, plants, mammals, even bugs and microbes that are in the ecology of natural forest.

As the owner of a replanted tree farm that is now 19 years old, I think you should know that your eloquent conjecture is completely false.

I'm sure your tree farm is doing just fine, but are you aware of how many corporations cut down forests full of diverse deciduous species and replant the whole area with pine trees? Also, a lot of times no one at all replants after logging.

It takes 100 years for a forest to recover from being clear cut.

I think he was saying was that many of the trees that are cut down are hundreds of years old, and having both old and new trees is important to the ecosystem. Also, there is no question as to whether deforestation wipes out whole species.

Recycling reduces demand and hence ruins the economic incentive for preserving or creating a forest on one's property.

I keep my phone in my pocket now because there isn't any reason not to. If I were able to charge it via solar, I would look for opportunities to take it out and do so. So I think it isn't 100% gimmick.

Only if you are out walking all day long. Don't you have a desk at work, is so then just pull it out and put it near the window. Or in your car, pull it out and put it on the seat next to you. See, not so hard.

Well, sure, but given how cheap solar cells are nowadays, aside from design costs I don't think adding a solar cell would add up to more than 5 bucks or something like that. For the few times that this feature might be useful it might actually not be such a bad idea...
But really, in other to make a "greener" phone they NEED to start designing these things with longer userful live's in mind. 18 months average is awfully small. The laptop I'm writing this on is going to be six years soon, why couldn't my pho

IANA-Electrical Engineer, but seems like a more common use case than a phone sitting in direct sunlight.(I'm sure the whole thing is just a 'look at us - we're green!' marketing stunt anyway) (Not that I RFTA'd or anything like that)

I'm not entirely certain how Samsung is "throwing down the gauntlet" with this phone. To me it seems more like an eco-marketing gimmick but I'll let that go and stick to the reply...

I suppose the notion with the solar panel thing is that the user habits are expected to change to accommodate the whole charging with the sun deal. What I find interesting about this isn't the "benefit" of solar charging to the user/environment but to the manufacturer who will be selling additional phones to replace those that

I have been kicking around the idea of doing the Appalachian trail and although I obviously want to get off grid, it would be nice to have a phone in case of life or death emergency. I wonder if this thing is small small and light... in that case, the built-in solar would be just the ticket.

Besides that they are too pricey for most applications, aren't those iridium satellites now playing bumpercars 300 miles up and creating a nice collision debris cascade? hard to phone to a satellite that is in 2000 pieces. (unless it is that cricket computer from the hitchhikers guide)

"It may not have the glam or the flash of the Samsung Blue Earth, but ZTE's Coral-200-Solar takes solar power to a side of the market that needs it far, far more urgently -- the side without power outlets. The Chinese manufacturer is teaming up with Jamaica's Digicel Group to roll out one of the world's first mass-market solar cellphones to folks with "limited or no access to the power grid," which represents

Samsung's phone is just a shiny lifestyle phone.ZTE's Coral-200-Solar actually embodies what you'd expect from a solar phone.

I can't help but notice that neither one is ruggedized, and that either one is going to require that you wear plastic pants if you want it to charge while in your pocket.

Both phones are MASSIVE FAILs in my book, and I can't actually see anything on engadget that indicates that the Coral-200-Solar is actually better for off-grid use than the Samsung toy. In fact, the Samsung is smaller, which makes it arguably better for people who are operating on minimal resources as you can see every day in many countries

I think you'd be better off with a solar backpack and the phone you already have. That being said, I suspect most of the Appalachian Trail has rather poor cellular coverage. In Washington state, I couldn't even connect while hiking Mt. St. Helens, which is pretty close to a major metropolitan area, despite having line-of-sight for about a 50 mile radius.

The back of the phone doesn't seem the most reasonable place for them. Most people after all use their hand to hold on to the phone while talking - hence covering up the back of the phone while using it. And those who use bluetooth are often carrying the phone in their pocket, where one generally doesn't find much sun light, either.

It seems if you had a backpack or something with the solar cells on it, and a connection (maybe inside in the backpack?) to plug into devices to recharge them it would make a lot more sense than having each device have the solar cells on it.

Yeah, because bluetooth works on pure magic, and doesn't use any radio waves or anything else that we were previously worried about. Bluetooth actually works with little multilingual fairies carrying your voice through the air to your phone.

And of course, if you're using a bluetooth there's a good chance your phone is in your pocket - we all know that nothing down there can get cancer, either.

And of course, if you're using a bluetooth there's a good chance your phone is in your pocket - we all know that nothing down there can get cancer, either.

Well, if you get testicular cancer (where the rapid turnover of cells is occurring, after all) you can just drop one testicle. By the time it happens you probably won't need it anyway. Hell, I'd probably be happier with a silicone lump in there. Swap 'em both while you're in there, doc.

Bluetooth functions at dramatically lower power levels than your cellular phone does, especially while you have poor signal, simply by virtue of not being intended to send the signal so far. If you're concerned about putting

The microwave radiation used in mobile phones is non-ionising. There is as much reason to expect a mobile phone to give you brain cancer as there is to expect your angle poise lamp to give you skin cancer. People hear the word "radiation" and it conjures up images like the incredible hulk, or men in hazmat suits hosing down contaminated reactor buildings. Radiation just means energy travelling away from a point source in all directions [wikipedia.org] - it doesn't mean "deadly poison". Ionising Radiation is the kind that k

Well, if you get testicular cancer (where the rapid turnover of cells is occurring, after all) you can just drop one testicle. By the time it happens you probably won't need it anyway. Hell, I'd probably be happier with a silicone lump in there. Swap 'em both while you're in there, doc.

While he likely didn't get it from a cell phone, Lance Armstrong would say otherwise about testicular cancer. When they caught it in him there were cancerous cells found throughout his body.

Kudos to them if the solar panel actually generates more energy than the energy cost of producing the panel. My cell phone is on my hip and I barely get enough light to keep from turning a pastey shade of grey. My wife's phone is generally in her pocketbook.

With this new phone, I'd have to leave it laying around during the daytime instead of letting it spend the day in my pocket. Which lowers the convenience of a cellphone considerably - normally mine is in my pocket until bedtime.

In other words, not a terribly useful modification to the basic cellphone.

It sounded cool at first, I was thinking they'd have a solar panel charging device. Plug your phone into it while you're at work if you work in the day time by a window, and have it charge like that.

This phone is far from that. Putting a solar panel on a phone seems rather useless, unless you intend to leave it out in the sun all the time. When you're walking around outside your phone will be in your pocket, when you're using it, your hand will cover the panel. Plus most people charge their phones at night,

So do I need to keep this phone on a clip on my belt so it can get some sun? I mean when I call people my hand will be pretty much all over those panels and they won't get any light. Does it recharge in the seconds it takes me to put the phone back in my pocket? And when will the panels be facing the sun? Do I need to hold the phone up when i use it for texting.
This idea is retarded.

I believe there should be a "down" in there. As in "Samsung is clearly throwing the gauntlet down to all phone manufacturers." "Throwing the gauntlet to all phone manufacturers" makes it sound like they're just having a nice relaxing game of gauntlet catch.

Yes, just like my solar-powered flashlight, which doesn't have a battery which allows me to use it for longer than it is typically dark. Oh wait, it does... Perhaps you were trying to be humorously ironic, but instead you ended up being ironically humorous (especially since those free evening calling plans are precisely the perfect match for this phone, which can be charging during the day and in use at night.) So I guess this phone is marketed to people who sleep during the day.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to generate power by walking instead of putting it into a lousy pedometer? The sun doesn't _usually_ shine too brightly into the pockets of my pants. Besides, what do I need a pedometer for anyway? That's what GPS is for.

I remember being in a position once where I was stranded(had my wallet stolen) and the only way out of the situation was to make a phone call, only my phone battery was almost dead. I made the call, but got cut-off right after I explained my situation, but before I could relay my location. I ended up having to hunt for someone to borrow a phone from(easier said then done).

With this phone, it wouldn't have been a problem. I could simply have sat down in the sun, and waited to be able to make a call.

I don't get it. How are you saving trees with this phone? Has Samsung employed a gang of vigilante loggers to cut them down if you do not walk a certain distance per day using the phone as a pedometer in "Eco walk" mode? Has there been a new scientific discovery that CO2 may in fact kill trees, negating the previous data that it is neutral or possibly even beneficial toward plant growth?

But does it give a report on the rare metals mined in deep Africa needed to build it?

The geek-factor on one of these is huge and I'd be all over it like a prussian woodpecker over a Louis XIII Antique Chair, but all this greenness only makes sense to those willing to ignore the un-greenness of the whole manufacturing process.

I like the idea of this. A solar powered phone would be great (provided solar charging isn't the ONLY) option when I'm on the road or on a camping trip, or burn up all by battery life playing Tetris on the bus. Flip it over, leave it next to a window, forget about.

What I'm not altogether keen on is the contrivance of bundling this with the "green" fad. I don't give two shits about how many trees the manufacturer hugged with designing the packaging, and I, for one, think that moulding phones out of recycled

PET plastic is PET plastic. Who cares if it's been melted down and then re-cast?

Anyway, that's why they're not turning the recycled bottle into FOOD-GRADE products. I'd prefer to have a phone made of "questionable" plastics than a drink bottle. Are you going to eat the phone? Still better to eat this offering from Samsung than a different model made from nice, "fresh" brominated flame retardants.

This is old news, there are a BUNCH of Chinese made cell phones being sold on infomercials in China with solar charging capabilities. They've been selling these for years....Here's a nicer looking example [inhabitat.com] I quickly found just searching...not a fair representation of the lot because there are quite a few very repulsive looking ones.

How good are they? I'm not sure as I've never used one but as far as I can tell from the ultra-cheesy infomercials, these phones are light years ahead of what the big cellphon

You people who shit all over every single new product need hobbies or something.
Just because it doesn't work for you or isn't exactly what you need or can't play Ogg Vorbis files and doesn't run Ubuntu 8.08.12-a build 2108-c doesn't mean that it lacks value.
If it isn't your perfect product... don't buy it.
New features are steps toward better features. Every idea has to start with a single product, usually one with an imperfect implementation.
I applaud Samsung for doing something interesting and dif

"
Oh no, this phone will cause users to get skin cancer, since they will have to be outside all the time."
Untrue. It will however cause a class action suit for neck injuries sustained while charging the phone during long conversations and, of course, multiple ear injuries due to idiots thinking gluing it there was a good idea.

I would find this useful. At home or at work, I put my phone on the desk anyway, so it can recharge easily then. I'd probably still charge it from the grid some of the time, but for travel or if it runs down, I'm not completely cut off.

It's a great idea, and I like the look of it. I think I prefer having a separate solar charger though, so I wouldn't have to remember to leave it out in daylight. Besides, if it's separate from the phone you could incorporate a wind-up facility, which would be incredibly useful, especially living where I do in the land of snow and ice (England).

I see much more value in this phone if you are going camping, England should have almost 100% phone coverage of the landmass so a mobile phone should be sufficient communication, a problem I see is rain, if you have a separate solar panel your phone could remain safely within the tent.

While the built in solar panel certainly earns some geek points I still think separate solar panels are the way to go.

That reminds me of when my power got shut off and I ran my computer overnight plugged into a car with the engine running. It's amazing how much can actually get from a car, altho probably not the most efficient way to produce electricity.